Allowed

Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy (Home) Gov. of U.P Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023BAIL/6501/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow granted bail to the accused in a rape case. The court noted discrepancies in medical evidence and the applicant's claim of consent, finding the case fit for bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42352

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6501 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy (Home) Gov. Of U.P Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Abhinav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicant Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 23 of 2023, under Sections 354 (Gha), 376-D, 384, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 66 E of I.T. Act, Police Station- Lonar, District Hardoi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in which she has deposed that she had gone along with the applicant to a hotel where she was drugged and thereafter rape was committed with her. However, on the pretext of making the video viral, many times rape was committed by the applicant and the co-accused. She further stated that 8-9 times, the applicant and the co-accused Pradumn Mishra committed gang rape on the prosecutrix.

¶9

Learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence of obscene material or video in which applicant is shown to have committed the said offence. He stated that in the Case Diary filed as Annexure 8, it is mentioned that there is no video or any obscene material available on record against the applicant. He further stated that it is a case of consent and as per school certificate, the age of the prosecutrix is 21 years and she was major at that time. It is further submitted that the co-accused namely Pradumn Mishra has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4462 of 2023, in which he has been granted bail by this Court vide its order dated 25.05.2023. Copy of the bail order has been produced before this Court during the course of argument (which is taken on record). It is further submitted that the role assigned to the applicant is identical to that of the coaccused Pradumn Mishra.

¶10

Learned counsel the the applicant further submitted that the medical report of the prosecutrix is also not supporting

¶11

the prosecution case. He further stated that there is no criminal history against the applicant and he is in jail since 26.01.2023.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the applicant has committed the said offence, therefore, he does not deserve mercy of the Court and thus, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected but very fairly conceded that the ocular evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence in the present case. It is also not disputed that the parity claimed by the applicant with the co-accused Pradumn Mishra against whom the same allegations have been made as it has been alleged against the present applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by perusing the record, considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties particularly the argument of consent and the fact that medical report is not supporting the prosecution case and the age of girl is 21 years and she is major, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶14

The bail application is thus allowed.

¶15

Let the accused/applicant Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu involved in above-mentioned case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not communicate with any of the prosecution witness including the informant and the violation of this condition alone shall be a sufÏcient ground for the trial court to cancel the facility of bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

(ii) Applicant shall not take adjournment on any of the date on which the prosecution witness(s) are in attendance and in this regard shall file an undertaking before the trial court.

¶18

(iii) If in case of any exigency/urgency the applicant is not able to appear before the trial court he shall instruct his counsel engaged in the trial court to do all required for early disposal of the case including the cross examination of any prosecution witness.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity

¶22

or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Nitesh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy (Home) Gov. of U.P Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy (Home) Gov. of U.P Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Child in Conflict With Law Thru. Father Md. Raseed @ Raseed Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others

Nazim Thru. His Mother Smt. Saira Bano @ Smt. Sakira Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Mukaddar Ali Vs State of U.P.. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Bhanoo Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Prabal Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sect. Home Deptt. Lko

Anand Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home. Lucknow